The UFO phenomenon is validated. The phenomenon is real, but no one can prove who or what is causing it. This blog presents the research done over many years by competent people showing that the UFO phenomenon is a validated mystery and, therefore, is of a profound existential and great scientific significance.
"The DNA of the Strange | with special guest Dr Garry Nolan." Played live on MJ Banias´s YouTube channel, April 26, 2019. Duration: 1:21:59.
Some early research has speculated that certain humans are more predisposed to ’The Strange.’ Join MJ and Dr. Garry Nolan of Stanford University as they discuss Nolan's genetic research, his interest in anomalous phenomena, and how science, Forteana, UFOs, and the paranormal may coexist in one complex (meta)physical system. Pull up a chair. Grab a drink. Tip your server. Welcome to Cafe Obscura.
Dr. Garry Nolan is the Rachford and Carlota A. Harris Professor in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at Stanford University School of Medicine. He has published over 220 research articles and is the holder of 20 US patents, and has been honored as one of the top 25 inventors at Stanford University.
This interview is from April this year (2019), but the content in the interview is timeless. Some parts of the content are also thought-provoking and raise some complex ethical questions. Therefore, I highly recommend you to listen to the whole interview when you have ample time and feel sharp in your mind. I can even recommend you to pause the video and reflect for some minutes when you feel that Dr Gary P. Nolan is saying something important or raises a question.
I will not say more about the content. What I will do is to give you a rough map of what is being covered and when in the interview. Do not take my notes or map as an exhaustive summarization of all the interesting and useful information that Dr Nolan shares during the interview.
"Newly Released Luis Elizondo Emails: A Breakdown Analysis." Live-streamed on the YouTube channel The Black Vault Originals, August 22, 2019. Duration: 1:56:47.
Join me, John Greenewald, Jr., as I breakdown the new Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) release of e-mails to/from Mr. Luis Elizondo. (Source for documents: https://www.theblackvault.com/casefil...)
Find out about the process Mr. Elizondo utilized to have the three "UAP videos" reviewed by the Pentagon, and, what the e-mails reveal about the videos themselves. I'll even go through what the e-mails DON'T reveal, despite what some may want you to think.
In addition to the documented facts, I'll break down a statement on this very issue by Luis Elizondo himself, made through George Knapp and Coast to Coast AM (not KLAS-TV/Las Vegas). Why would Mr. Elizondo respond this way, and not through their own PR department/firm working with To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science? What important details did Mr. Elizondo omit from his statement to justify his actions? I'll use his own words to prove these discrepancies and possible outright fabrications to protect his story.
Lastly, I will break down the downright fabricated (yes, I'll prove it) "reporting" by some bloggers/"journalists" that are twisting the facts, and even making up their own, to fit TTSA's agenda and protect their image. Don't take my word for it -- I'll show you the proof and let you decide by showing you their own words, not mine, and verifiable evidence to disprove their claims to you, all while parading as "unbiased journalists."
Who do you believe when it is all said and done? You decide... join me for a fun and informative analysis of what these documents really are... and aren't.
My point in writing and posting the above presentation by Mr. John Greenewald Jr., is simply, and mainly because I think it is important that all perspectives and different assessments of the "Luis Elizondo emails" are taken into consideration. Or, perhaps, more precise from Greenewald´s point of view: the assessment of the public narrative of "Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program" (AATIP), and Mr. Luis Elizondo´s role in AATIP.
Secondly, for a big picture thinker like myself, and who is not in any way a researcher, I think Greenewald´s presentation is an excellent example of how anyone who wants to call themselves a "ufo researcher" should conduct fact-checking in a detailed and thorough way. In other words, how to approach and research the UFO phenomena (in this case, FOIA documents).
The link below takes you to a clarifying article by journalist Alejandro Rojas. In my mind, the article do not only clarify the issues with, or doubts about, who released the Navy UFO videos, but also resolve the issue once and for all. I also write this blog post because I think Roja´s article contains valuable information that in the future can be used as a reference.
For more background what this issue with the release of the videos has been about, and in some researchers´ minds still is, please read Alejandro Rojas´s article in the link below. Under the link, I am going to give a couple of my personal thoughts on the content in Roja´s article, and raise some further questions that I think Roja´s article are eliciting.
Why do I think Alejando Roja´s article resolve the issue with who really released those UFO videos from the Navy, or, really, from the U.S. Government (the Pentagon, the Department of Defense)?
First, I have to say that the main cause of the issue in question is the U.S. Government itself, in this case, mainly the Department of Defense (DoD). The next question is obvious; is this issue / confusion created deliberately by the DoD or is there a more mundane explanation of the many contrary statements from different employees in the DoD?
While, we cannot with certainty rule out the ever present "plausible deniability" in the case of UFOs and the U.S. Government (USG), I will still go with the most likely explanation of the difficulty of keeping employees in a big organization informed and knowledgeable about what is going on, policies, definitions of this and that term, and so on and so forth. The DoD is a huge bureaucratic organization with thousands of employees in different departments, offices, etc. Also, people move from on department / office to another, people quit, retire, new people come in, etc. Those problems are present in civilian corporations and companies too. Especially the problem of the "flow of information" both vertically and horizontally within a corporation.
So, I believe the problem with all those contrary statements coming, or statements that later has been contradicted by official documentation, from different employees in the Dod is mainly caused by human error.
Another cause of the confusion surrounding the question of who released the UFO videos, and the strange statements by the DoD, is as obvious as it is important. Alejandro Rojas writes in the last paragraph of his article:
It is hard to say why the OSD Public Affairs department has been making statements that have later been contradicted by official documentation. In their defense, Reid told the New York Times the program was secretive, and its creators did not want its existence known. It is tough to find details about AATIP by design.
I think skepticism, asking relevant questions and to critically look at all the pieces of information is fundamental and crucial, if one wants to know the truth. Therefore, besides to Alejandro Rojas, I would like to express a thank you and my respect to researchers such as Roger Glassel (@rogerglassel on Twitter) and John Greenewald (theblackvault.com), whose research have played an important role in clarifying and resolving the issue discussed above.
That is my opinion; the issue with who released the UFO videos, and whether Luis Elizondo worked in AATIP or not (he did), is now resolved.
However, I think there are pieces of information in Roja´s article that raises further questions. For example:
Is AATIP an "industry partner" to the USG? If yes, what does it mean for the disclosure process? Who is in charge of and directs the disclosure process of the truth of the UFO phenomena? Who has responsibility for what part of the disclosure process?
If no, how is it possible for Luis Elizondo to release, to publicly talk about the UFO videos in question, and, at the same time, work in a private company? How is it possible for Luis Elizondo, who still is bound by non disclosure agreements, to state on national television that he believes the USG have material from UAPs? Regardless, if he formulates it as his personal belief or opinion? The same questions are relevant to Harold Puthoff.
Tom DeLonge has stated that Luis Elizondo gets "polygraphed every few months" because of a specific clearance Elizondo has. If someone in the USG has given Elizondo "green light" to facilitate disclosure, is the lie-detector test one of the conditions from the USG? That is, is the lie-detector test, and this specific clearance, an indication that Luis Elizondo is still employed by the USG? Or have I missed some information that explains the lie-detector test, and what the specific clearance is?
Elizondo, in his email correspondence with DOPRS official Michael Russo, writes "However, my intent is to maintain positive control but I know it’s a bit unique of a situation so whatever is easier for you and quicker." (For further context, please read Roja´s article above). What does Elizondo mean by "a bit unique of a situation"?
Now, all of those four questions are asked out of curiosity, and I do not put any values in them. My point with raising them, is that I think the answer to some of them are important to know in the name of transparency, honesty and openness regarding the disclosure process. The questions have direct implications on what kind of disclosure process is unfolding at the moment, and how it is going to unfold in the future.
If a careful and selective disclosure process is a fact, and actually is going on, then I have no problem with the "careful" part. I am a bit more concerned about the "selective" part. Neither do I have a problem with that the disclosure process is going to be slow, and that I have to be patient. I think I understand that it is a delicate act of balance to get everything right at the right time, and to satisfy all the different players involved. It is a game of chess. Perhaps the most important game ever played in human history?
I guess, what I am really asking, and concerned about, is where the loyalty of the people involved lies? I do not ask that question directed to a group of people, it is directed to each of the individuals involved, because what is in the heart and mind of the individual will influence the group, and vice versa.
At the moment, I believe, and hope, that their loyalty is to the truth of the UFO phenomena, that the truth is made known to the general public, and that the technology and energy sources being developed are going to benefit not only a select few, but the whole of humanity and planet Earth.
Everyone interested in the truth of the UFO phenomena should swear their allegiance to the truth. Not with any specific individual, group, or organization. The truth do not care about my, or someone else`s, beliefs, opinions, assumptions, preferences, or group affiliation.
But a part of the journey and adventure of seeking the truth is obstacles, opposition, loneliness, frustration, doubt, anger and fear. You cannot avoid that, or hide from it. What you can do, and what you do control, is how you face those obstacles along the way, and if you choose to learn something about yourself or not.
Question everything you read, hear and see about the UFO phenomena (hereafter, "the phenomena"). Including the content on this blog. Trust no one. Not necessarily because people are untrustworthy, but because no one can claim to know with certainty what the truth is about the phenomena or what is not true about the phenomena. That ignorance includes me.
That is why this post is describing "the standards of reasoning" (below the "Background" part), mentioned briefly in a previous post, and why they are important (according to me) to the discourse of the phenomena. But, before that, some more background.
The terms "ufology" and "ufologist", are problematic. Because they imply some systematic method and theory underlying the study of the phenomena. There is not. Which is a problem that Jacques Vallée has pointed out in several of his books and in various interviews through the years.
The main reason for the lack of such a shared theoretical and practical framework to study the phenomena is probably the elusive and complex nature of the phenomena itself. Most people knowledgeable about the phenomena know the phenomena require a multidisciplinary approach. Neither the STEM sciences nor the humanities/social sciences can, on their own, expand our knowledge and further our understanding of the phenomena.
So what can a curious layperson do to become a more trustworthy thinker on the phenomena?
In one of my previous posts, I briefly mentioned some "standards of reasoning" to make the stigmatized UFO subject into a more legitimate subject to be openly interested in and publicly talk about. That is, if one is seriously interested in and cares about the truth behind the phenomena, then one can start with examining how one is thinking, writing and talking about the phenomena.
I can, for instance, ask myself; Do the way I communicate about the phenomena to the outside world give a clear picture of the phenomena's profound existential and scientific implications?
Or, am I thinking and communicating about the phenomena in a factual and nuanced way?
Or, how is my way of representing the phenomena, influencing other people's perception about it? Am I adding to the social stigma of the ufo subject, or am I contributing to reducing the stigma?
I wanted to write this post mainly because I care about and think it is crucial that the UFO phenomena/subject goes fully mainstream. I think it is crucial to get the unbiased and unfiltered truth of the phenomena into the public domain. If the ufo subject would become mainstream, then the disclosure process would become by, for and of the people. Citizens, politicians, lawmakers, academics, scientists, and journalists would together create a force strong enough to break down the walls of the secrecy surrounding the phenomena.
But for such a force or pressure on our governments to manifest at all, I believe the public first has to become receptive to reliable data on the phenomena.
What I am trying to say is that from the public's perspective, the ufo subject has to go from a tinfoil hat subject to a serious subject. Thanks to, mainly, the "To the Stars Academy," some positive effects on the social stigma have taken place. But there is still a lot of work to be done in that area.
So my idea with the previous post about "the standards of reasoning", and with this post, is that anyone currently interested in and following the ufo subject can reduce the social stigma of the phenomena by practising some basic thinking skills. The purpose of practising those basic skills is to raise the quality of the discourse on the phenomena, and in that way, hopefully, also improve the perception of the ufo subject among people currently unfamiliar with ufo subject and/or ignorant of the UFO phenomena's profound and significant implications for the future of humanity and our home, the Earth.
Since I only mentioned "the standards of reasoning" briefly in that previous post, I thought I should describe those standards in a bit more detail. So, that comes next.
What are the standards of reasoning?
The standards are nothing new. What I call and describe here as "the standards of reasoning" are good old techniques from philosophy: Socratic questioning and critical thinking skills. They are, in theory, easy to learn but harder to stay true to and apply in real life. Why is that?
Because the "soul" of the standards of reasoning is a genuine curiosity, and genuine intent, to expand one's knowledge and deepen one's understanding of a subject, an aspect of a subject, a problem, a question, and of fellow humans - their point of view, values, etc. The aim of Socratic questioning is to gain a deeper understanding of one's self and the world.
That genuine curiosity and intent are what should drive and sustain one's search for (a) truth.
If a genuine curiosity about something/someone and genuine intent to understand that same something/someone are not present, then one is not staying true to and practising the standards of reasoning.
The standards of reasoning (or, for short, "the standards") are as much about one's approach/attitude as they are about technical skills. The approach one should internalize is that of a willingness to understand something or someone. To understand something or someone, one shouldpractice the noble skill of listening. If one genuinely wants to understand something or someone, one will listen with presence, concentration, respect and in a nonjudgmental way. And, of course, listen with curiosity and intending to understand.
So, I hope by now that it is clear that the standards of reasoning are not about winning, being right, crushing one's opponent in an argument, etc. The standards have nothing to do with one's own ego, needs, worldview, opinions, etc. Or, as far as it is possible, one should put aside one's own ego and one's need to be right.
The standards have everything to do with one's relation to knowledge, understanding, and truth. The standards also have everything to do with self-knowledge or self-awareness, but we are not going into that aspect in this post.
If we can compare the search for knowledge, understanding and truth as a relationship to a person you hold dear and care about, I believe it can be easier to get the approach to the standards. To truly understand someone, put your ego aside and, so to speak, walk in that person's shoes. That may sound strange regarding understanding a subject or a problem, but if you think about it, it is actually not so different. To understand a subject or a problem, you need to put aside your current assumptions, beliefs, and so on. At least for a while. You need to create an opening and space for new information to flow with as little resistance as possible.
And as most people know, curiosity, intent, understanding, and listening have at least one foundational thing in common: They all begin with an essential question. Essential or relevant questions is the beginning, the birth of progress and development in all academic disciplines, and in all kinds of quests for the truth. Most important in this case, the development and progress of our own way of thinking and communication about the UFO phenomena/subject.
That is why the foundational skill in the standards of reasoning is asking essential questions.
Questioning the components of reasoning and questioning the quality of reasoning.
Introduction.
The following content is mainly inspired by The Thinker's Guide to The Art of Socratic Questioning. Based on Critical Thinking Concepts & Tools, by Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder, and Critical Thinking: an introduction to the basic skills (3rd edition), by William Hughes. I have taken some ideas and models from those two books, and so to speak, made them into my own.
First, notice the term "the art" of Socratic questioning. Yes, it is indeed an art, or a craft, to ask the essential question at the right moment, to the right person, and in the right situation. It is as much about feeling/intuition/creativity, as intellect and logic. It is about being fully present and focused, but in a relaxed manner. You should not be in a freeze-fight-or-flight state of mind (threat, defence, avoid, attack etc.). Instead, you should be in a rest-digest state of mind (peace, safety, openness, receptivity, etc.).
Second, both critical thinking and Socratic questioning share a common end. Critical thinking provides the conceptual tools for understanding how the mind functions to search for meaning and truth. Socratic questioning employs those tools in framing questions essential or relevant to searching for meaning and truth.
In the following, we are going to look at two critical thinking concepts; 1) the components of reasoning /thinking (analyzing thought), and 2) the quality of thought (assessing thought). We use those two concepts to identify essential questions that, hopefully, will raise our thinking to higher levels of understanding and quality. And in the end, take us as close to the truth as possible.
1. Questioning the components of reasoning.
To ask an essential or relevant question, you need to identify and focus on the right component of reasoning. I think the following model of "universal components of thought" can help identify the relevant component of reasoning to match with your question:
1) Whenever we think, we think for a PURPOSE 2) within a POINT OF VIEW 3) based on ASSUMPTIONS 4) leading to IMPLICATIONS and CONSEQUENCES. 5) We use DATA, FACTS, and EXPERIENCES 6) to make INFERENCES and JUDGEMENTS 7) based on CONCEPTS and THEORIES 8) to answer a QUESTION or SOLVE a PROBLEM (Credit to Dr. Paul & Dr. Elder).
Before I give some guidelines and examples of essential questions to each of those 7 (nr. 8 is a goal) components of reasoning, I should mention that I am mainly concerned about applying critical thinking and Socratic questioning on "one-system" questions and "conflicting-system" question, because these are the most relevant in the search for to truth about the UFO phenomena.
One-system questions require evidence and reasoning within a system. They have a correct answer = Knowledge. With one-system questions, there is an established procedure or method for finding an answer. They are prominent in mathematics, as well as in physics and biology.
Conflicting-system questions require evidence and reasoning within conflicting systems. They have a better and worse answer, but rarely no verifiable correct answer = Judgement. With conflicting-system questions, there are multiple competing viewpoints from which, and within which, one might reasonably pursue an answer to the question. These questions are predominant in academic disciplines as, for example, history, philosophy, religion, sociology, and economics.
I believe most people interested in the phenomena, and in the truth about the phenomena, probably wish we would have more answers to the one-system questions. I know, I do.
But, since the modern era of "ufology", we have been, and still are, mostly trying to answer conflicting-system questions because of the lack of substantial data that is possible to verify or refute with certainty through established procedures and methods. We do not know if but can suspect such substantial data exists. It is yet to be made public. Until it becomes public, we have to make the best of the situation of finding ourselves struggling with finding more or less well-supported answers to questions with more than one possible answer.
Hence, in my mind, the importance of basic skills in "standards of reasoning."
Ok, back to "questioning the components of reasoning" or thinking. As you formulate questions, consider the following guidelines and sample questions:
1. Questioning Purposes and Goals. Assume that you do not fully understand someone's thought (including your own) until you understand the purpose/goal/agenda behind it. Some of the many questions that focus on the purpose component of reasoning include:
What is the purpose/goal of this book, article, chapter, blog post, interview, discussion, etc.?
Why is _ ?being said or written at this moment and/or in this context?
Who is the audience?
What is the central agenda/goal? What other agendas/goals are needed to be considered?
2. Questioning Viewpoints and Perspectives. Assume that you do not fully understand someone's thought (including your own) until you understand the point of view or frame of reference that places it on an intellectual map. Some of the many questions that focus on the point of a view component of reasoning include:
From what point of view are you looking at this?
Is there another point of view/perspective we should consider?
Which of these possible viewpoints/perspectives makes the most sense given the situation?
What am I looking at, and how do I see it? How can I look at it in another way?
3. Questioning Assumptions. All reasoning/thought rests upon assumptions. Assume that you do not fully understand someone's thought (including your own) until you understand what it takes for granted. Some of the many questions that focus on the assumption component of reasoning include:
What exactly are you taking for granted here?
Why are you assuming that? What other assumptions can be relevant, reasonable in this case?
What assumptions underlie our point of view? What alternative assumptions might we make?
Should I explicitly state my assumptions?
4. Questioning Implications and Consequences. All thought is headed in a direction. It not only begins somewhere - resting on assumptions (axioms) - it also goes somewhere - has implications and consequences. Assume that you do not know fully understand a thought (including your own) unless you know the most important implications and consequences that follow from it. Some of the many questions that focus on the implications and consequences of thinking include:
What are you implying when you say _ ?or write _?
If we assume this to be true, what is likely to be the implications? Are those implications likely, probable, significant, relevant, etc.?
Are your implications following your initial assumption? What alternative implications could result from your assumption?
5. Questioning Data, Facts, and Experiences. All thought presupposes an information base. Assume that you do not fully understand a thought (including your own) until you understand the background information (facts, data, experiences) that supports or informs a thought. Some of the many questions that focus on the information component of reasoning include:
On what information are you basing that comment/claim/statement?
What experience convinced you of this? Could your experience be distorted?
How do we know this information is accurate? How could we verify (or refute) it?
Have we failed to consider any information or data we need to consider?
What are these data based on? How was the data/information developed? By whom?
Is our conclusion based on hard facts (knowledge, one correct answer) or soft facts (judgement, more than one possible answer)?
6. Questioning Inferences and Judgement. All thought requires the making of inferences, the drawing of conclusions, the creation of meaning. Assume that you do not fully understand a thought (including your own) until you understand the inferences and the meaning that have shaped the thought/line of reasoning. Some of the many questions focusing on the inferences and judgement component of reasoning include:
How did you reach that conclusion?
Could you explain your reasoning?
Is there an alternative, plausible conclusion?
Given all the facts, what is the best possible conclusion?
7. Questioning Concepts and Ideas. All thought involves the application of concepts. Assume that you do not fully understand a thought (including your own) until you understand the concepts and ideas that define and shape thought. Some of the many questions focusing on the concept and idea component of reasoning include:
What is the main idea you are using in your reasoning? Could you explain that idea?
Are we using the appropriate concept, or do we need to re-conceptualize the problem?
Do we need more facts, or do we need to rethink how we are labelling the facts?
Is your question a scientific, a theological or an ethical one (fact, preference, judgement?)?
2. Questioning the quality of reasoning.
"Quality" of thought, or reasoning, is a matter of degree in clarity, precision, accuracy, relevance, depth, breadth, logicalness, and fairness. Imagine writing an article, a book, a blog post, or a comment on social media. Before publishing, you need to evaluate the quality of your reasoning:
1. Questioning Clarity.
Am I clear about what I am saying, or is my thinking muddled (vagueness)?
Have I stated my main idea, then elaborated it?
Have I provided examples to make my points clear?
Have I written sentences that can be interpreted in different ways (ambiguity), or have I made my intended meaning clear?
2. Questioning Precision.
Have I provided adequate details for the reader to understand precisely what I mean? Do I need to be more specific, precise, detailed?
3. Questioning Accuracy.
Have I made sure that all the information I have presented as factual is so?
Are my sources of information credible?
4. Questioning Relevance.
In the article, book, blog post, etc., as a whole, do I keep a clear and consistent focus?
Do I wander from the main point?
In each paragraph, is everything in the paragraph relevant to the main idea in the paragraph?
5. Questioning Depth.
Do I clearly understand what makes the issue complex?
Have I sufficiently detailed those complexities?
6. Questioning Breadth.
What points of view are relevant to this issue?
Am I failing to consider this issue from an opposing perspective because I am not open to changing my view?
Have I entered the opposing views - or all relevant points of view - in a factual, nuanced manner, or only enough to find flaws in them?
7. Questioning Logic.
Do all the ideas in my paper fit logically together?
Do my first paragraph fit with my last?
Do what I say follow from the evidence?
Have I made the connections between ideas evident to the reader?
8. Questioning Fairness.
Do I have any vested interest in this issue?
Am I sympathetically representing the viewpoints of others?
Have I adopted the principle of charity? According to the principle of charity, whenever two interpretations are possible, you should always adopt the most charitable interpretation, that is, the one that makes your "opponent's" views as reasonable or defensible as possible.
Of course, the above description of the standards of reasoning is not exhaustive. The reason I wrote this post is, again, because I care about how the ufo subject is perceived by people outside the ufo community and how the subject is handled by people in the ufo community. And I truly believe that people in the ufo community can raise the status of the ufo subject and help people unfamiliar with the subject understand its profound existential and scientific implications.
One fairly simple way to erase the social stigma of the phenomena is to start with oneself: to honestly examine if what and how oneself is thinking and communicating about the phenomena is adding to or reducing the social stigma of the UFO phenomena/subject.
Important new information has emerged concerning the famous “UFO” incident at Rendlesham Forest.
A #military#eye-witness has reported that scientific data was planted into his mind during an #encounter with a #UAP, the second #RFI witness to make such a claim — in this case a formula and associated information concerning #antimatter and #antigravity.
I got the permission from one of the copyright holders, Tim Acheson (@timacheson), to use the video interview above (if embedded).
I am aware of, but not involved in, some kind of grouping regarding what is the actual truth about the Rendlesham Forest UFO incidents. That is of course unfortunate, but not unusual in these kinds of high profile UFO cases, involving multiple events and witnesses.
The reason I am posting the interview with Michael Stacey Smith is because I believe his testimony to be honest and genuine. It is another voice and another perspective to help us put together a more clear and complete picture of the Rendlesham Forest UFO incidents.
As always, I encourage anyone interested in finding out the truth, to do their own research, reflections and to make up their own mind about what to believe or not.
"Michael Heiser - The Unseen Realm Seminar." Published on the YouTube channel Sentinel Apologetics, August 26, 2018. Duration: 4:55:00.
I will explain the point with this post further down. For now, I want to say that it is not meant to offend anyone, but rather to encourage everyone seeking the truth about the UFO phenomena to try to follow, and stay true to, some "standards of reasoning." By doing so, I believe one can make a constructive contribution in making the UFO phenomena into a legitimate subject to openly be interested in, and seriously study. Both in- and outside the UFO community.
I think it is safe to say, that a religious and a spiritual aspect has, in one way or another, been present in the UFO phenomena since, at least, modern times. This supernatural, or mysterious, element of the UFO phenomena, seems to always lurk in the background. Sometimes implicit, other times, explicit.
Why is that? Is it because of human imagination and a tendency to see patterns where there is none? Is it because of a human need to believe in a benevolent force that looks after us, makes us feel safe in, and make sense of, a big, dangerous and chaotic world?
The latter question is, in itself, a very fascinating question: Why do human beings (on a group level) seem to have this strong need (or genetic disposition?) to believe in something supernatural? Why is religion and spirituality a global phenomena, which probably have been around since time immemorial?
And, why does there seem to be a great overlap between religious experiences and descriptions of the supernatural, and experiences of the UFO phenomena?
The background to this blog post, is that the religious, spiritual aspect of the UFO phenomena, seems to have had somewhat of a revival, since Tom DeLong and A.J. Hartley published their book series "Sekret Machines", and the other book series that Tom DeLonge is involved with together with Peter Levenda, "Gods, Man & War." The latest contribution to the religious aspect of the UFO phenomena, is the book "American Cosmic" by D.W. Pasulka, even though Pasulka´s book is more of a comparative study between religious beliefs and beliefs in the UFO phenomena, and their sociological effects.
"Revival" may not be the right word, but it is my feeling, that more people in the ufo community (and, perhaps, outside) have become more curious in the possible association between religion and the UFO phenomena. And as a former high school teacher in religion and psychology, I think this eventual "revival" is welcomed, and important, in order to understand and get a clearer picture of what has, and is, going on with the UFO phenomena.
But, as with all the other aspects of the UFO phenomena, the potential connection between the UFO phenomena and religion has to be approached with caution and humility. I am specifically referring to the idea that extraterrestrial beings either intentionally or unintentionally, have created or influenced the evolution of the world´s religions, and in that way, also many other aspects of human history and culture.
The seminar above with Dr. Michael S. Heiser, is an attempt from my part to illustrate why we have to approach that idea with caution and humility, but also all other aspects of the UFO phenomena: "How much do I know about and understand a subject in order for me to say something sensible about it, make relevant associations to other subjects, and draw reasonable conclusions from the subject?"
You can read more about Dr. Heiser´s academic background and peer reviewed publications on the following link: https://drmsh.com/.
Another of Dr. Heiser´s web pages, that is about "learn how to think well about all things fringe", is this one: https://www.fringepop321.com/.
Just to be clear, I am not sharing Dr. Michael S. Heiser´s faith, but I respect it. Neither do I agree with all of Dr. Heiser´s opinions about matters concerning the UFO phenomena - for example the ones Dr. Heiser´s expresses in one of his blogs, https://drmsh.com/category/uforeligions/ - but I respect his knowledge in his domain of expertise, that is, in Hebrew and Semitic language studies.
I should also be clear with, that Dr. Heiser in the seminar above, is not in any way making associations between religion and the UFO phenomena. He does not even once mention the word "UFO", or "ET", in the seminar in question (he briefly mentions Zackaria Stichen once or twice), but he is interested in the UFO phenomena, and does talk about it in some of his other talks and presentations. Dr. Heiser is interested in, and have specialized in, "the weird" stuff in Judaism and Christianity.
But, he is studying this "weird" and "fringe" stuff in a scholarly manner. That is important, it is my point in this text. I will say more about it in a moment.
Acquiring knowledge, trying to get to the truth, can be exciting and invigorating. At the same time, and in most cases, the acquisition of knowledge and the search for the truth, is a test of perseverance and resilience. To get personal, I have a tendency to give up too easily if and when I do not understand a concept, a model, or a subject, immediately. That is, obviously, not a good strategy if you have the desire to become a real expert on a subject.
I am not saying, that in order to think, reflect and speculate about a subject in a sensible manner, you need to have a Ph.D (I do not), or a university degree. Far from it. But regardless of one´s educational background, everyone can learn some basic skills that will raise the quality of a discourse, for instance, on the UFO phenomena. Being cautious with what one claims, aware of one´s limited knowledge, and humble before the challenge of finding (a) truth, are also important skills, or attitudes, that everyone can practice and internalize.
So, here comes my point(s) with this post:
If one wants to contribute in making the UFO phenomena to a legitimate subject to study - particularly outside the ufo community - then one always has to remind oneself to adhere to some basic "standards of reasoning." These standards include, but are not limited to, clarity, precision, accuracy, relevance, depth, breadth, logicalness, and fairness. That is, one question those standards in other people´s reasoning, andin one´s own reasoning. I fail with both, probably more often than I am aware of, but I try to remind myself of those standards, and I try to follow them.
If one do remind oneself of those "standards of reasoning", and consciously apply them to one´s own reasoning, then one becomes very aware of how difficult it can be to actually reach the truth, or even to understand a subject in a deep way. That is, you become more cautious in your statements and claims, and more humble before the complexity of reaching the truth.
If someone is interested in "standards of reasoning", I can recommend the book "The Philosopher´s Toolkit. A compendium of philosophical concepts and methods," by Julian Baggini and Peter S. Fosl.
I know that a lot of people both in- and outside the ufo community is aware of those standards, so it is not my intention to write anyone on their nose.
My point is, that raising the quality of the thinking, speculation, and discussion about the UFO phenomena in the ufo community, would also have positive effects on the status of the UFO phenomena outside the ufo community.
One of the main reasons for the UFO subject having a social stigma (it has started to change, though), is the world´s government's silence surrounding their awareness of and knowledge about the UFO phenomena. That is no longer a conspiracy theory. But this silence has created a void that triggers people´s imagination and tendency to automatic thinking. That is only human, but also obstructs some positive progress regarding the status and position of the UFO phenomena in the minds of those in the general public not familiar with the validity of the existence of the UFO phenomena, and its profound, significant implications for humanity and life on Earth.
My last post was mostly speculative. I mentioned in the first sentence that the post is speculative. And it is ok, amusing, and sometimes useful, to speculate as long as you are crystal clear that you are speculating, and not claiming your speculations, reflections to be a fact, or some universal truth.
Or, if you are portraying something to be a fact, then you have to be aware that the burden of proof falls onto you. You have to be prepared to be questioned.
Now, like most of the people interested in and following the UFO phenomena, I was intrigued to hear Tom DeLong talk about his insider connections in the highest echelons of the military- and intelligence complex, tell him about how our religions are a creation of one or several of "the Others", in order to control and divide humanity.
As intriguing as I think that is to hear, the burden of proof falls on Tom DeLonge, and / or on his insider connections. I truly hope, that DeLonge´s sources and connections are certain of what they are saying, and that they eventually can provide the general public with undeniable proof of "ET" influencing religions and human history in general.
Think about the implications if it is true. I am serious, really think about the implications. If one has the power, status, and is in the position to make other people believe those kind of claims, one should be very conscious of one´s power to influence, and the responsibility that comes with that kind of power.
My point is, again, we have to apply "the standards of reasoning", regardless of how much we like, respect and support the efforts of "To the Stars Academy", or regardless of any other individual or organization we favor and believe in.The truth is the only thing that is important, and I believe we are running out of time for claims and statements lacking in precision, clarity, fairness, and so on.
Ok, enough with my rant.
I should say something about Dr. Michael Heiser´s seminar. The purpose of including the seminar in this post, is to use it as an example of how tempting it can be to think that one knows a lot and understands a subject, after browsing the internet and reading some books. I thought I knew a lot about the early Judeo-Christian religion, but after watching and listening to Dr. Heiser´s seminar, that illusion was quickly exposed.
In the seminar above, Dr. Michael S. Heiser is going through the foundational concepts that he is writing about in his book "The Unseen Realm. Recovering the supernatural worldview of the Bible." You can read more what the book is about, and its goal, on the following link: http://www.moreunseenrealm.com/.
The foundational concepts that run through the almost 5 hour long seminar are "Divine Council" (God among other gods), "Cosmic Rebellion", "Cosmic Mountain", and "Cosmic Geography." "Cosmic" means "supernatural."
Why should anyone watch and listen to the seminar? Well, if you are interested in religion, and in this case the history of the Judeo-Christian religion /tradition, then the answer is obvious.
If you want to dig deeper into the potential association between religion and the UFO phenomena, then this seminar is a good start. That is, with some more knowledge about what and how academics think about religion, you can start asking more precise questions, and become better equipped to look at a potential association between religion and UFOs in a more critical way, that is, to practice and use "the standards of reasoning"
One key lesson I take with me from Dr. Heiser´s seminar, is the big problem with translation between languages - in this case Semitic language and English, and more importantly, the complex issue of interpretation. It is not enough to master a Sumerian language (or dialect) and be able to translate it to one's mother tongue.
A good example of the difficulties of translation and interpretation, comes around the 22:15 minute mark in Dr. Heiser´s seminar. Here he talks about the question "Who is / are Elohim?", that is, the apparent problem with "God" being one among other "gods."
Yes, it is a long seminar, or video. The content is academic and detailed, so watching one part /one hour at the time divided over a couple of days, is recommended. I will give you the start and end time for the four different parts of the seminar, and what theme, or questions, that Dr. Heiser is covering in each of the four parts of the seminar.
Part 1: Actual session starts 5 minutes into the video, and ends at 1 h, 5 min. Foundational concepts covered are "Divine Council" and "Cosmic Mountain." Some of the questions examined are "Who is / are Elohim?" (why many gods?), "what about all these sons of God in the Old Testament?", the Edenic vision, and more.
Part 2: 1:05:00 - 2:07:37. "The Treefold Rebellion", or "Cosmic Rebellion." The Watchers - who were they according to the ancient Israelites? The Mesopotamian "apkallu" (givers of knowledge, wisdom). Why is humanity so depraved, and the world so wicked, according to the ancient Israelites (it is not just about "the fall").
Part 3: 2:07:37 - 3:01:37. "Jesus, Cosmis Geography and Judaism´s two powers in heaven." Angles as embodied God - how can God be two things at the same time, or be in two different places at the same time? The Word - visions and experiences of God; God in human form? Jesus and Cosmic Geography; I recommend to pay attention and listen to the segment starting 2:47:00, until the end of part 3.
Part 4: 3:01:37 - 3:45:02. "Cosmic Geography in the New Testament." Dr Heiser is connecting the foundational concepts from the Old Testament (OT) with the writings in the New Testament (NT). For example "The Cloud of Witnesses" in the NT is the same at the "Divine Council" in the OT.
Q & A: 3:45:02 - to the end of the video.
If you are interested, and have the patience, to listen to Dr. Heiser´s seminar, and have read, for example, "American Cosmic" by D. W. Pasulka, you will find that there are quite many descriptions of the supernatural in the Bible that resembles the way we are describing the UFO phenomena.
Does it mean, that there is something to the idea that some "ET" is behind the "invention" of religion and religious belief systems? Well, it might. Or, it might not. How can we find out which way it is?
The answer to that question is the same as to how can we prove without any reasonable doubt that nonhuman intelligences exist, and that they are here.
It comes down to what you consider to be enough evidence - and what constitutes "evidence"- and what you consider constitutes a "proof." Evidence and proof are two different things, both in mathematics and in law.
Personally, I think the evidence for the reality of the UFO phenomena is overwhelming, and most likely would win in a court of law. I am satisfied in that case. On a subjective basis, I am also convinced that in some cases UFOs are something nonhuman, or not from this earth. But, in a strict empirical sense, I have not seen proof of some UFOs being extraterrestrial, inter-dimensional, or whatever we wish to call the intelligence behind some of these UFOs.
With that said, I believe there exists proof of a nonhuman intelligence visiting earth. What about the idea that nonhuman intelligences have created, or influenced, some, or all, of the world´s largest religions?
Intriguing, but I have no idea. At the moment, I do not even think I can grasp the implications, should it be true. We will never know for sure, until the truth about the UFO phenomena will be revealed. And as I said in my last post, the truth will always, and eventually, show itself. If we will like the truth or not, is another matter.
Let us always remind ourselves and each other, to try to apply some "standard of reasoning" when we read, hear, watch, think and talk about some aspect of the UFO phenomena. Let us be cautious and humble in our statements and claims.
Most importantly, let us always remember that the area of what we do not know, will always be greater than the area of what we know.
If we remind ourselves of "the standards of reasoning," I believe we can contribute in making the UFO phenomena to a fascinating and legitimate subject to be openly interested in and study.
